The USA's Great Proud Just History.

[Mushroom]

We sell Japan military arms now. Including the F-35 fighter. Can you imagine that?

We also sent them some of our first overseas military advisors. Ho Chi Minh was also a recipient of US aid and advisors.

 

[elektra]

...

The Japanese were seeking to make a peace agreement? ...

General MacArthur informed fdr of this in a 40-page communique several days before fdr left for the Yalta Conference. fdr summarily dismissed it because he has no interest in pursuing the possibility of peace regardless of how many more American servicemen would have to die.

MacArthur? Roosevelt? MacArthur was a bit outside the circle of top military leaders in regards to the plan to defeat Japan. But we can include MacArthur. I see that you have not included this 40-page communique? So that is not part of the conversation? I will get back to this. It takes time to formulate a educated, researched response. So be a bit patient, we would not want you to go off half-cocked and declare yourself right without my response.

 

[elektra]

American military leaders knew that Japan was a beaten foe, and said so. But I should take your word for it instead?

My word, whatever gave you the idea I was simply going to make a statement without the ability to back up my words with facts from history that is indisputable. Thus far, all you have posted is your word? You can not hardly consider a google search that finds a vague article that cherry pics one or two sentences from history is evidence or fact, which is what you seem to expect us to accept. A vague article is no better than your word so you will have to come up with something that includes references as to where they get their quotes from.

 

[elektra]

The link is for the benefit of those like you who are ignorant of history. There are hundreds of links on the dozens of threads on this topic. Go read them and educate yourself.

The link is from a simple google search that pretty much is far left liberal democrat dictated search results. The link is vague and does not include references. One can not educate another by simply cutting and pasting from google searches.

A bit of scholarly research is in order. Or, I will provide more than a 2 second google search.

 

[elektra]

Hiroshima: Military Voices of Dissent | Origins

Almost six decades after the fact, the 1945 unleashing of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima continues to be the subject of impassioned debate. Every year the bombing anniversary — which falls on August 6 — occasions heated exchanges between those who question the atomic bombing and those who...

origins.osu.edu

Indeed, contrary to conventional opinion today, many military leaders of the time — including six out of seven five-star officers — criticized the use of the atomic bomb.

Except of course, they are all not named, they are all not quoted, nor is a source stated for any of them. A huge fail by the Authors.

That is three extreme shortcomings of this article.

There were nine five star officers during World War II, not seven. That is the fourth shortcoming or the fourth failure of this article. Four fails in one sentence!

The fifth failure would be not all nine of these officers new the bomb existed before it was used, hence they never criticized the use before it was used.

There is no need for a link or source for these facts. If one wants to contend somebody knew of the bomb and stated to Truman or Stimson that it should not be used they should source that information. Source being a book or an article that is verifiable. Random google searches areb typically lacking when it comes to verification through sources.

I will show easily, that Leahy and Eisenhower both said nothing before the bomb was dropped. I will give links and quotes.

Doing google searches with a cut/paste of the link really is child's play. It is lazy and it is not educational. You fool yourself if you think otherwise.

Anyhow, it will take me time to read/copy/source from books. Some books I may not have. In that case I will purchase them to add to my library. To address your post I just purchased 3 books on Admiral Halsey as well as a Life magazine from July of 1945. That out to be real good. weeks before the bomb is dropped, what is the thoughts of Admiral Halsey.

It is a shame your, "article" does not contain a source for their information. It is hard to believe a university can be sloppy, so lazy. But hey, you can not be accurate and include sources if you are simply a liar.

 

[elektra]

Hiroshima: Military Voices of Dissent | Origins

Almost six decades after the fact, the 1945 unleashing of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima continues to be the subject of impassioned debate. Every year the bombing anniversary — which falls on August 6 — occasions heated exchanges between those who question the atomic bombing and those who...

origins.osu.edu

The link is for the benefit of those like you who are ignorant of history. There are hundreds of links on the dozens of threads on this topic. Go read them and educate yourself.

How does one respond to the following comment from the Chief of Staff to Roosevelt and Truman?

Admiral Leahy wrote in his 1950 memoirs that "the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender."

Well, if Leahy's 1950 memoirs are the source, than I must use the same source to have the same credibility and the same validity. Leahy states that the war against Japan will end 18 months after the defeat of Germany. Germany was defeated in the beginning of May of 1945. So according to Leahy's words he wrote in the same book as the above quote, Japan would be defeated in November of 1946! Well, simple math shows us that the Atomic bombs ended the war 15 months early.

At the second Quebec Conference it was estimated that that the war against Japan could be concluded in about eighteen months after Germany should be defeated. pg 312, I Was There, Leahy

Already defeated and ready to surrender? Yet it was estimated that the War against Japan would last another 15 months without the Atomic bombs!!!! It is obvious that the Atomic bombs were of Material Assistance as well as Psychological assistance.

 

[elektra]

The link is for the benefit of those like you who are ignorant of history. There are hundreds of links on the dozens of threads on this topic. Go read them and educate yourself.

I dont blame you for deleting your last comment, it was pretty lame. As you can see, your links, nobodies links, prove what they contend.

Are you going to offer more, on Leahy. His own words prove the bomb shortened the war by over a year! I used the source referenced in the article you linked to. Things are very simple, your argument falls apart everytime because you can only google search and link. Google only works if you burn all the books they reference. For if one reads and quotes from the book the facts prove you and the revisionist history can only cherry pick and hope to obfuscate the truth.

 

[Unkotare]

...His own words prove the bomb shortened the war by over a year! ......

No, they don't. It is tragic that you are so utterly unfamiliar with basic logic that you cannot see that for yourself.

 

[elektra]

No, they don't. It is tragic that you are so utterly unfamiliar with basic logic that you cannot see that for yourself.

Admiral William Leahy, is the first person referenced in your link. And this is what they quote;
"the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender."

I reference the book that your article claims they are using for a source, this was my quote;
At the second Quebec Conference it was estimated that that the war against Japan could be concluded in about eighteen months after Germany should be defeated. pg 312, I Was There, Leahy

Leahy, according to his memoirs, states the war against Japan will end 18 months after Germany is defeated. Germany was defeated in May of 1945, 18 months later is November of 1946! The war ended over a year early dropping the two atomic bombs.

What did Admiral Leahy say in January of 1945? Again from the book, I Was There, referenced in your link, pg. 286;
The Japanese were facing an inevitable eventual defeat, but because of their fanatical, savage resistance until they were killed, there seemed little prospect of obtaining from them an unconditional surrender within the year that was before us.

Admiral Leahy, in speaking with King George the VI, pg 431, I Was There.

.....His Majesty and I discussed the atomic bomb. The king asked me about its potentialities. I said, "I do not think it will be as effective as is expected. It sounds like a professor's dream to me!"

I can go on and on and on, quoting Admiral Leahy, from his book, I Was There. Throughout the book Admiral Leahy is adamant, the bomb will be a dud. It will be of no use in ending the war. Admiral Leahy was also against a land invasion of Japan. Admiral Leahy thought an invasion would be too costly in lives. It was clear that sometime in the future the Japanese would eventually be forced to surrender. We simply needed to surround their Island and starve them while continuing a ceaseless bombing campaign.

Admiral Leahy was all for bombing Japan. I do not see anywhere in his book that Leahy objected to bombing Japan. No mention of the civilians killed in the fire bombing of Tokyo. It is clear, Admiral Leahy was in favor of bombing from the air and never once objected to dropping the Atomic bombs, not until after he had to eat his words and pull his foot out of his mouth over all the times he stated they would never work.

The bombs ended the war. It was a sad end, but an end to be proud of. As Admiral Leahy stated throughout his book, Japan was beaten but would not surrender until 18 months after the defeat of Germany. 18 months of fighting is a long time and would of resulted in many people dead on both sides. That is war, death. The Atomic bomb saved many lives that is clear.

 

[Unkotare]

...The Atomic bomb saved many lives that is clear.

No, that is speculation. Do you know what that word means?

 

[Unkotare]

...Leahy, according to his memoirs, states the war against Japan will end 18 months after Germany is defeated. Germany was defeated in May of 1945, 18 months later is November of 1946!...

Do you know what the word "estimate" means? Do you think that Leahy had some magic ability to set an absolute end date to the war, professor?

 

[elektra]

Do you know what the word "estimate" means? Do you think that Leahy had some magic ability to set an absolute end date to the war, professor?

Yes, they estimated, that without the Atomic bomb the war would end well over a year after the date that it did end. Leahy did not need magic. Leahy used the resources of our government which relied on the experience we had in fighting wars. An accurate estimate was made. The war ended 15 months earlier than the conservative estimates.

 

[Unkotare]

... An accurate estimate was made. .....

So you really don't know what the word "estimate" means?

I've told you many times to study logic. You really, really should.

 

[elektra]

... An accurate estimate was made. .....

So you really don't know what the word "estimate" means?

I've told you many times to study logic. You really, really should.

Yes, it was an estimate, which after the Atomic Bombs ended the war, it was irrelevant. Had the bombs not been dropped, we believed it would take over a year and a half to defeat Japan. That estimate was not 3 or 4 months after the fall of Germany, it was estimated that it would take 18 months of fighting to force Japan to surrender.

I am using your source, thank you for the treasure trove of facts.

 

[Unkotare]

... Had the bombs not been dropped, we believed it would take over a year and a half to defeat Japan. ....

"Believed"

Still don't know what "estimate" means?

 

[Unkotare]

...
I am using your source, ....

Using it incorrectly, and with a lack of regard for logic typical of you.

 

[elektra]

That the USA is the Great, the Proud, and our history is Just.

Your own leaders were not as deluded as you. But then they lived the history rather than uncritically slurping a propagandised version of it.

Op-Ed: U.S. leaders knew we didn't have to drop atomic bombs on Japan to win the war. We did it anyway​

​

While a majority of Americans may not be familiar with this history, the National Museum of the U.S. Navy in Washington, D.C., states unambiguously on a plaque with its atomic bomb exhibit: “The vast destruction wreaked by the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the loss of 135,000 people made little impact on the Japanese military. However, the Soviet invasion of Manchuria … changed their minds.” But online the wording has been modified to put the atomic bombings in a more positive light — once again showing how myths can overwhelm historical evidence.​

Seven of the United States' eight five-star Army and Navy officers in 1945 agreed with the Navy’s vitriolic assessment. Generals Dwight Eisenhower, Douglas MacArthur and Henry “Hap” Arnold and Admirals William Leahy, Chester Nimitz, Ernest King, and William Halsey are on record stating that the atomic bombs were either militarily unnecessary, morally reprehensible, or both.​

No one was more impassioned in his condemnation than Leahy, Truman’s chief of staff. He wrote in his memoir “that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender …. In being the first to use it we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages.”​

MacArthur thought the use of atomic bombs was inexcusable. He later wrote to former President Hoover that if Truman had followed Hoover’s “wise and statesmanlike” advice to modify its surrender terms and tell the Japanese they could keep their emperor, “the Japanese would have accepted it and gladly I have no doubt.”​

​

I have addressed, Eisenhower which history shows pretty much lied. I have addressed Leahy from the source within your source/link and have shown Leahy never objected to the bomb being dropped, Leahy was adamant that it would not work.

What about Admiral Halsey. After the bombs were dropped, upon hearing that the Japanese were about to surrender, Halsey growled, "Have we enough fuel to turn around and hit the bastards once more before they quit". Not exactly the words of a man being sympathetic with the japanese. Halsey did say it was not the bombs that ended the war, but the U.S. Navy that he commanded. Certainly in that regard Halsey is partially right, the bombs were dropped after the navy, the marines, and the army got us close enough to drop the bombs. It was a joint effort.

Admiral Halsey was busy fighting the naval war, never was told the secret of the bombs, and never was in a position to be asked about the bombs before they were dropped. He was busy fighting the war, with the navy.

 

[Marion Morrison]

It cannot be serious to suggest a country would believe leaflets from an enemy.

Very true, but after the Dolittle raid on Tokyo, the months of bombing across the entire country of Japan, I am positive that the Japanese people took the leaflets very seriously. Sadly, the food was not up in the mountains where it was safe and there was the fear of arrest or murder if they fled, so many could not or would not heed the warnings.

But you can sleep easy at night, knowing, that after months of bombing, leaflets and warnings were taken seriously.

It ended the war. The End. No more kamikazes, amirite?
No more kamikazes after that?
Winning. Next!

 

[elektra]

"Believed"

Still don't know what "estimate" means?

and you still have nothing more than silly little insults. Have you noticed, nobody cares to help you. Nobody can support the articles I have refuted.

 

[Unkotare]

"Believed"

Still don't know what "estimate" means?

and you still have nothing more than silly little insults. Have you noticed, nobody cares to help you. Nobody can support the articles I have refuted.

You still fail to see your failure of logic.